Slashdot Mirror


Government Shutdown: TLS Certificates Not Renewed, Many Websites Are Down (zdnet.com)

More than 80 TLS certificates used by US government websites have expired so far without being renewed, leaving some websites inaccessible to the public. From a report: NASA, the US Department of Justice, and the Court of Appeals are just some of the US government agencies currently impacted, according to Netcraft. The blame falls on the current US federal government shutdown caused by US President Donald Trump's refusal to sign any 2019 government budget bill that doesn't contain funding for a Mexico border wall he promised during his election campaign. This has resulted in hundreds of thousands of government workers being furloughed across all government agencies, including staff handling IT support and cybersecurity. As a result, government websites are dropping like flies, with no one being on hand to renew TLS certificates.

19 of 1,044 comments (clear)

  1. Let's Encrypt by Meneth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If they set up Let's Encrypt properly, they can have automatic renewing of their certificates.

    1. Re:Let's Encrypt by Nkwe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Putting a certificate on a website does two main things: 1) Allows the traffic to be encrypted, and 2) Provides assurance to people using the website that the website is genuine. Let's Encrypt only does the first thing - allows encryption. Let's Encrypt provides no real assurance that the website is what it claims to be. For many websites the encryption use case is sufficient, and using Let's Encrypt makes all kinds of sense both practically and economically. If you are a bank, the social security administration, a retail site that takes credit card numbers, or any site that your users may provide you with sensitive data, you really want to purchase a certificate from an authority that provides a higher level of identity assurance than does Let's Encrypt.

  2. Re:This might call for some Fox News counterhackin by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If they pay for his wall because he has a tantrum, what's next?

    He'll be shutting down the government for every last little thing until he gets his way.

    There's no way anybody should give way on this (except The Donald, obviously).

    PS: Wasn't Mexico going to pay for this?

    --
    No sig today...
  3. It's Pelosi, not Trump by MikeRT · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The blame falls on the current US federal government shutdown caused by US President Donald Trump's refusal to sign any 2019 government budget bill that doesn't contain funding for a Mexico border wall he promised during his election campaign.

    No, it's her desire to see him not get a key campaign promise through and see him not get reelected in 2020. That's what this is about. They are willing to ensure than 800k federal employees don't get paid for months because they are that Hell-bent on seeing his chances reduced in 2020. That's it.

    The Democrats supported every wasteful thing Bush and Obama put out there. They supported Obama's expansion on Bush's militarism.

    The fact is that if Trump wanted $10B to bomb a randomly named country, half the Democrats would give him the money. It's only--only--when that money is put toward something that is a core campaign promise and related to what people want (border security) that they lose their minds and channel Ayn Rand.

    1. Re:It's Pelosi, not Trump by close_wait · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh, you mean that core election promise that Mexico would pay for the wall with a one-off payment. Looks like the Dems (and the GOP before Jan) are just holding him to that promise.

    2. Re:It's Pelosi, not Trump by swillden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why did Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell want to prevent him from getting that key campaign promise through?

      Couple things. Paul Ryan delivered on the $5.7 but the Senate didn't have enough votes (10 democrats).

      10 Democrats what? The Republicans had a clear Senate majority, as well as the tie-breaking vote. The bill could have been passed without a single Democrat voting for it, they could even have survived four defections... but they had a lot more than that, didn't they?

      By waiting till after the election (especially after losing the House) McConnell, Trump, and Ryan have made the division in government clear.

      You should re-read your own post. They haven't made the division clear, they're trying to pull a fast one and make it look like it's GOP vs Dems, when really it's Trump vs an alliance of part of the GOP & the Dems. The narrative that "Trump fights his own party" is, in fact, the truth with respect to wall funding (as well as some other areas). Also, "never Trump" is a mischaracterization of Flake and others who supported plenty of Trump's initiatives. Those GOP members aren't "never Trump", they just aren't "always Trump", and in Trump's narrative you're either with him or against him; there's no room for nuanced disagreement.

      FWIW, I'm a Republican-leaning libertarian who rarely agrees with Trump, but believes that even when he's right he's still bad for the country.

      the democrats are not acting based on principle but rather "Never Trump".

      Actually, I think it's both. Even without the Trump hatred I still don't think the Democrats would want to fund this boondoggle of a wall. It goes against their principles, even though they rarely see a government program they don't love. I could be wrong, of course; heaven knows both parties have funded untold boondoggles.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  4. Re:This might call for some Fox News counterhackin by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You mean by doing the sensible thing, eg. Postponing the wall until there's money to pay for it?

    (There'll be money, right? Trump's economic policies are working...?)

    --
    No sig today...
  5. Re:Good by phishybongwaters · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Obama deported the most illegals than any previous president. He did run and get elected as a Democrat right? Just cause fox and friends tells you something, that doesn't make it real. In fact, if it's coming from fox it will either be a lie, or coated in delicious lies. Just like the crazy neckbeard racist fuckwads don't represent conservatism as a whole, neither to the left wing nutjobs who seem to get endless airtime. I get that it's hard to understand these bubbles, but you really need to be aware that they exist on both sides. Left = all conservatives are racists Right = all democrats are socialsts The extremes are entirely made up bullshit. Sadly tho, the extreme on one side is certainly acting out with little to no repercussions.

  6. Re:This might call for some Fox News counterhackin by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Whatever happened to "elections have consequences"?

    Perhaps there is room on both sides to stop acting like children, and learn to work together.

    Sorry, the "pen and a phone" only work when Dems win the presidency.

    Because reasons. Or something.

  7. Poor IT practices? by egriebel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I know that this being /. that people like to bash Trump at every opportunity (even when unwarranted), but isn't this problem one of crappy cert management? Waiting until the very last minute before renewing a cert isn't a Best Practice. It's not like your wasting money by renewing a cert early.

    --
    ACHTUNG! Das computermachine ist nicht fuer gefingerpoken und mittengrabben. Ist nicht fuer gewerken bei das dumpkopfen.
  8. Re:This might call for some Fox News counterhackin by ilsaloving · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is no "two sides" to this. This problem falls squarely in the laps of the Republicans.

    Trump had an entire year to get this pushed through when the Reps had all three branches of gov't. He didn't.

    It only suddenly became a burning priority when the democrats took the house. There is only one side being childish right now, and that's been the case for a while now.

    (Yes, the democrats have their issues, but those issues are not what caused this current mess.)

  9. Re:This might call for some Fox News counterhackin by MachineShedFred · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What you just said:
    "No, we aren't in the business of governing anymore."

    The election is over. Now it's time to actually govern, which means working together to get the business of the federal government done.

    If you don't want to govern, don't run for government office. If you just want to be a political hack, get a fucking AM radio talk show like all the other hacks.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  10. Re: This might call for some Fox News counterhacki by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The election of the President in the US has always been, for 200+ years, by electoral college

    Which was necessary when calculating the national vote was not a practical thing to do in a short amount of time (days, even). We can tally the national vote in hours or less now. Results don't have to be transported on foot, by horse, or even by rail.

    a massive Democrat campaign to overturn the results by trying to force the electors to not vote for him

    Nice conspiracy you have, there. Care to provide support for it?

    It was also NOT an "appalling low turnout" as it was statistically above the average turnout for all elections and had the largest RAW count of votes EVER.

    That represents barely 60% of the population of people who are eligible to vote. Any other democracy would consider that an appalling failure - especially if you include the citizens who are uniquely ineligible in this country who would be able to vote in almost every other democracy.

    Our country has the distinction of being one of the only "democracies" where politicians can pick their voters as much as the voters can pick their politicians.

    But go ahead and keep slinging silly insults at me and attacking me instead of actually presenting facts. That seems to pass as dialogue for a certain portion of our country now.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  11. context matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Those were not about walls along the whole fucking shebang southern border, but rather small portion, and about sensible policies. You know, like the one republican hate more than dems : fining hugely and financially crushing people hiring illegals. But wait, can't do that, most of those are rich folk voting republican AND donating money. Yet this crack down on the people hiring illegals is what WORK.

  12. Re:This might call for some Fox News counterhackin by N1AK · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Elections do have consequences, and the consequence of electing more Democrats to the house than Republicans is that Trump can't just demand what he likes and get it anymore.

    The Democrats, and the majority of Americans, don't support the wall. How is it acting like Children for them to refuse to sign something they don't agree with? A parent isn't acting like a child if they refuse to give their toddler more dessert every time they start having a temper tantrum; and depressingly that's a close analogy to the current President and his typical behaviour.

  13. Re:This might call for some Fox News counterhackin by Shaitan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't forget whipping people and putting them in the stocks for celebrating Christmas and hanging people for adultery. There are so many fun practices the early colonials had. I think it would be fair rather than to pick and choose which of religious practices of Europeans and Colonials we want to base our society on we just don't do that at all. How about we go with the spirit of the Christ figures statement when he said "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and give unto the lord that which is the lords." It seems Christ advocated for a separation of church and state. When he turned over the tables in the temple he also advocated for separation of church and commerce. It is odd how many who claim to be his followers center so much of their lives and beliefs around the opposite.

  14. Re:This might call for some Fox News counterhackin by TrekkieGod · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Which means we should be spending less and taxing more, not spending $5 billion on something that's not even effective at preventing what it's designed to prevent. Considering the majority of illegal immigration is a result of overstayed visas, the majority of the drug traffic happens at legal ports of entry, and the known or suspected terrorists that have attempted to enter the US have been caught at airports, it seems to me the return on investment on building a border wall is nowhere near the $5 billion he's asking for.

    This is slashdot, so in programmer terms, this is premature optimization. Sure, there are thousands of people illegally crossing the border, but if you actually run a profiler you'll see that's not the even the hot path, so why are we proposing to spend so much of resources on that instead of elsewhere?

    --

    Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

  15. Re:This might call for some Fox News counterhackin by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "He's" shutting down the government?

    If the budget originated with Trump and the dems refused to sign because it included wall funding, would you then say Pelosi and Schumer are shutting down the government?

    If not, your a partisan hack, only finding fault in the other side.

    If so, you're just an idiot, basing your argument solely on who brings the budget to the table first.

    He's executive NOT legislative. Technically, he's not supposed to even be meddling with this, that's not how the branches were originally intended (and all recent Presidents do this, not hitting only at Trump here). He's using his veto to prevent the legislative body doing what the legislative branch is there to do. I reiterate, it's not just him, they all do it. It's technically not his job, and wasn't what the position of President was originally intended to do.

    I think it's about time we "redefine" the Presidency and reset it back to what it was supposed to be, not the ever more powerful position it has become over the many decades. No one man (or woman) should have so much power in a democracy, whether it's a wacko on the right, or a wacko on the left- or even someone from the middle.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  16. Re:This might call for some Fox News counterhackin by jeff4747 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Spending bills still require 60 senators to pass, not 51, so the Republicans could not get it passed by themselves.

    No, the Republicans did not try to get it passed by themselves.

    The Democrats offered to vote for Trump's entire wall ($27b) in return for citizenship for the DACA kids. Republicans didn't even put that to a vote.

    You could have argued that McConnell could have changed the rules to allow those bills to pass with a simple majority

    Or, since it's a spending bill, McConnell could have left the rules alone and passed it via reconciliation.

    So the OP is right, the blame lies on both sides.

    Only if you pretend time started about 3 months ago.

    But Trump actually has a better hand. As pointed out, the amount he's asking for really is a tiny fraction of the budget. People's opinion of Trump is not going to change much over this, people that hate him will continue to do so. Pelosi and Schumer, though, are a different story.

    Polling doesn't bear out your prediction. Trump is getting the blame for the shutdown, people are responding that it's stupid to keep the shutdown going over the wall, and we're just starting to get to the point where it hurts the economy.